I'd rather they bear our souls.

Anyone notice he sent a copy of his resignation to Fox News?

(May 12, 2017 at 4:25 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 12, 2017 at 2:29 pm)Chad32 Wrote: This is a clear sign that the only thing keeping christianity from being just as bad as islam is secular laws holding them back. There is a lot of hate between christians and muslims, despite that there is little to nothing that muslims have done to people that christians haven't also done to people in the past.

That's two ridiculous unwarranted conclusions in only two sentences. Congrats on being efficient.

Sounds more like observations.  Far from ridiculous or unwarranted.

---

(May 14, 2017 at 2:07 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 14, 2017 at 7:22 am)Zenith Wrote: I think it depends on where you read from the Bible. Or if you take greater inspiration from books written by "saints" (not your case, you're a protestant), or on what the priest / pastor says. [1] 

Anyway, I was expecting the "they're not true Christians" answer. But for the whole world a Christian is one who considers himself Christian. If one
were to take every man who considers himself Christian and make a list of who or what makes one a "not a true Christian", and then add those lists
together, then every group of Christians would exclude all the others, so in the end all Christians would end up as "not true Christians". [2]

And if one who considers himself Christian tried to impose his religion on everyone else, then every non-Christian would consider him Christian. Same as we call Muslims both those who act nicely and those who are pieces of shit. [3]

1. It's your premise...where does the Bible give any indications that Christians should kill people they don't agree with? 

how about the entire OT?

2. It does not matter what some people think or call themselves. There is a definition of being a Christian found in the NT. If a church adds to that, then you could have a further distinction: Catholic, Baptist, Coptic...whatever. Because these additional layers are sometimes at odds with each other, then obviously some or all of the components of these additional layers are wrong. Whatever the differences, if a group strays from the basic definition in the NT, they would cease being Christians--because words have meaning. 

Yes, words DO have meanings!  Which is why it pisses me off every time a believer twists definitions of words to suit their tastes.

If your basic definition of a christian is true, there are precious few christians in existance.  Of course, the myriad of christians who disagree with you, and know their beliefs to be true through their relationship with god, who does one believe?

I posted this a couple of months ago:

What Christians are called to be (all based in the NT):

1. Has an undiluted devotion to Jesus.
2. Pursues a biblically informed view of the world.
3. Is intentional and disciplined in seeking God's direction.
4. Worships, and with a spirit of continuous repentance.
5. Builds healthy human relationships.
6. Knows how to engage the larger world.
7. Senses a personal "call" and unique competencies.
8. Is merciful and generous to those who are weaker.
9. Appreciates that suffering is part of faithfulness to Jesus.
10. Is eager and ready to express the content of his faith.
11. Overflows with thankfulness.
12. Has a passion for reconciliation.

  List from http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors...stian.html

Further on this topic, you have to distinguish between people who identify as cultural or nominal Christians. These are people who don't follow the NT, so don't meet the definition, but think it is necessary to distinguish themselves from other religions or from atheism without any real (or at least a superficial) epistemological commitment. 

3. If someone tried to impose Christianity on everyone else, that would be decidedly unchristian--so what are they really imposing? The fact that an observer believes it to be Christian does nothing to change that fact that it is not. 

So, the existance of modern christian has unchristian acts to credit for it's existance?

We identify Muslims as Muslims because the definition of a Muslim is a follower of the teachings of Mohammad (the Koran). Since the Koran can be reasonable interpreted in a conflicting ways, the definition remains pretty broad. In contrast, the NT is no ambiguous.

Not ambiguous to you.  

(May 15, 2017 at 9:48 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

---

(May 14, 2017 at 2:07 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. It's your premise...where does the Bible give any indications that Christians should kill people they don't agree with? 

how about the entire OT?

2. It does not matter what some people think or call themselves. There is a definition of being a Christian found in the NT. If a church adds to that, then you could have a further distinction: Catholic, Baptist, Coptic...whatever. Because these additional layers are sometimes at odds with each other, then obviously some or all of the components of these additional layers are wrong. Whatever the differences, if a group strays from the basic definition in the NT, they would cease being Christians--because words have meaning. 

Yes, words DO have meanings!  Which is why it pisses me off every time a believer twists definitions of words to suit their tastes.

If your basic definition of a christian is true, there are precious few christians in existance.  Of course, the myriad of christians who disagree with you, and know their beliefs to be true through their relationship with god, who does one believe?

I posted this a couple of months ago:

What Christians are called to be (all based in the NT):

1. Has an undiluted devotion to Jesus.
2. Pursues a biblically informed view of the world.
3. Is intentional and disciplined in seeking God's direction.
4. Worships, and with a spirit of continuous repentance.
5. Builds healthy human relationships.
6. Knows how to engage the larger world.
7. Senses a personal "call" and unique competencies.
8. Is merciful and generous to those who are weaker.
9. Appreciates that suffering is part of faithfulness to Jesus.
10. Is eager and ready to express the content of his faith.
11. Overflows with thankfulness.
12. Has a passion for reconciliation.

  List from http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors...stian.html

Further on this topic, you have to distinguish between people who identify as cultural or nominal Christians. These are people who don't follow the NT, so don't meet the definition, but think it is necessary to distinguish themselves from other religions or from atheism without any real (or at least a superficial) epistemological commitment. 

3. If someone tried to impose Christianity on everyone else, that would be decidedly unchristian--so what are they really imposing? The fact that an observer believes it to be Christian does nothing to change that fact that it is not. 

So, the existance of modern christian has unchristian acts to credit for it's existance?

We identify Muslims as Muslims because the definition of a Muslim is a follower of the teachings of Mohammad (the Koran). Since the Koran can be reasonable interpreted in a conflicting ways, the definition remains pretty broad. In contrast, the NT is no ambiguous.

Not ambiguous to you.  

1. Where specifically in the OT does it indicate that Christians should kill people they don't agree with? If your claim is true, it should be trivially easy to back up.

2. I agree that it is frustrating when anyone can't keep definitions straight.

3. No, one does not follow from the other. To make your statement true, it would have to be the case that only unchristian acts resulted in the continued existence of Christianity.

Since I was talking about the definition and expected actions of a Christian, no the NT is not ambiguous to anyone who cares to actually read what it has to say on the subject.

(May 15, 2017 at 11:02 am)SteveII Wrote: Since I was talking about the definition and expected actions of a Christian, no the NT is not ambiguous to anyone who cares to actually read what it has to say on the subject.

Yeah, the NT is totally not ambiguous.  Which is why Christianity has 10,000 denominations, and different beliefs based on that book.  It's totally fucking clear in it's message. Good luck getting two people to agree on what that message is.

(May 15, 2017 at 11:02 am)SteveII Wrote:

(May 15, 2017 at 9:48 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

---

1. Where specifically in the OT does it indicate that Christians should kill people they don't agree with? If your claim is true, it should be trivially easy to back up.

Exodus  Suffer not a witch to live.  If you don't know of the countless other atrocitites performed at the command of god, you need to read more, or else you've interpreted them to satisfaction.

2. I agree that it is frustrating when anyone can't keep definitions straight.

3. No, one does not follow from the other. To make your statement true, it would have to be the case that only unchristian acts resulted in the continued existence of Christianity.

Bullshit

Since I was talking about the definition and expected actions of a Christian, no the NT is not ambiguous to anyone who cares to actually read what it has to say on the subject.

I guess that include most christians, as most know the bible principally from what they are told is says, not what is written.

(May 15, 2017 at 11:23 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(May 15, 2017 at 11:02 am)SteveII Wrote: 1. Where specifically in the OT does it indicate that Christians should kill people they don't agree with? If your claim is true, it should be trivially easy to back up.

Exodus  Suffer not a witch to live.  If you don't know of the countless other atrocitites performed at the command of god, you need to read more, or else you've interpreted them to satisfaction.

2. I agree that it is frustrating when anyone can't keep definitions straight.

3. No, one does not follow from the other. To make your statement true, it would have to be the case that only unchristian acts resulted in the continued existence of Christianity.

Bullshit

Since I was talking about the definition and expected actions of a Christian, no the NT is not ambiguous to anyone who cares to actually read what it has to say on the subject.

I guess that include most christians, as most know the bible principally from what they are told is says, not what is written.

1. That makes no sense. You are referring to any number of commands a) written down 400+ years after the events, b) given to Israel under a theocracy, and c) over a 1200 years before the first Christian. The Christian instruction is pretty clear throughout the NT. Here is just ONE example: 

Quote:Love in Action
Romans 12:9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

3. Bullshit? Write your sentences more carefully if you want to make sense.

(May 15, 2017 at 11:39 am)SteveII Wrote: 1. That makes no sense. You are referring to any number of commands a) written down 400+ years after the events, b) given to Israel under a theocracy, and c) over a 1200 years before the first Christian. The Christian instruction is pretty clear throughout the NT. Here is just ONE example: 

Quote:Love in Action
Romans 12:9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

3. Bullshit? Write your sentences more carefully if you want to make sense.

Moving the goalposts?  You said "in the bible".

Redefining sense now?  Pathetic.

(May 15, 2017 at 11:42 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(May 15, 2017 at 11:39 am)SteveII Wrote: 1. That makes no sense. You are referring to any number of commands a) written down 400+ years after the events, b) given to Israel under a theocracy, and c) over a 1200 years before the first Christian. The Christian instruction is pretty clear throughout the NT. Here is just ONE example: 


3. Bullshit? Write your sentences more carefully if you want to make sense.

Moving the goalposts?  You said "in the bible".

Redefining sense now?  Pathetic.

Not moving the goalpost. You repeatedly said the Bible says "that Christians should kill people they don't agree with". That is patently false and it is not my problem that you can't write a sentence that is precise nor can you differentiate between the concepts like context and definitions.

(May 15, 2017 at 11:07 am)Divinity Wrote:

(May 15, 2017 at 11:02 am)SteveII Wrote: Since I was talking about the definition and expected actions of a Christian, no the NT is not ambiguous to anyone who cares to actually read what it has to say on the subject.

Yeah, the NT is totally not ambiguous.  Which is why Christianity has 10,000 denominations, and different beliefs based on that book.  It's totally fucking clear in it's message.  Good luck getting two people to agree on what that message is.

Most denominational differences are culturally or style related (and there are certainly not 10,000 of them). There are only a handful of doctrines that divide denominations--none of which would agree on the assertion made in our present discussion: Christians are not instructed to kill those they don't agree with. So, your point is wrong as a matter of both fact and context.